E.g., eating tasty food is not good for health. So, choosing healthy food over the tasty food is good for the individual and at the same time good for the world by making production of such healthy food environmentally friendly.

Similarly, the materialism and capitalism are pleasing to individuals in short term but they are ultimately causing harm to the overall humanity by over-production and over-consumption. Choosing spirituality over materialism is good for the individual as well as to the universe.

The first is pretty convincing as an example: the second is a matter of opinion and the answer is more complex than she states it.

I feel that this shows how contrived and artifial the Categorical Imperative is: it comes up once in a blue moon, and meanwhile, we are engaging cooperatively or competitively with our fellows all the time.

@unseen -“how about this example: “I want to start a beef cattle ranch.”” – if we process this situation using “my” formulation, Perfect Compassion, the answer would be, “go for it, but don’t build too many, because this would cause harm to the world.” (unnecessary harm.)

“…don’t build too many…” seems to miss the point by a mile. Applying the CI, I’m trying to decide if by starting a cattle ranch, I’m affirming that it’s okay for others—possibly many others or all others—to also build cattle ranches?

Like the Golden Rule (which it is, basically, reworded somewhat), it depends upon the notion that “people are the same wherever you go,” that all people want or value the same things.

I think you’re missing the point of how the Golden Rule works. In using the Golden Rule, we somehow put our own self, or a loved one, or some other valued person, in the place of somebody else with similar needs – automatically. So it’s always going to come from a personal perspective, but it’s universal in that we all do it.

I see, so if the other party is suicidal, is it okay to agree to kill him, then kill him under the Golden Rule?

“I see, so if the other party is suicidal, is it okay to agree to kill him, then kill him under the Golden Rule?”

– the most likely thing to happen is that I already have been in that position myself, or one of my loved ones has, and therefore, I identify the stranger’s predicament with my own or my loved one’s. Obviously, I wanted those people to live. I was greatly concerned for them. I care about them. Because of: 1) the imperative to help in response to need; and 2) the interchangeability of human beings psychologically and morally, I see this other person in need (suicidal) and transfer the care and concern of myself or my loved one onto them. That’s how the Golden Rule works. It means to do the best for somebody. Although I’m sure there is a negative version too: “this” kind of person once pissed me off, so I hate anyone who reminds me of them.

“I see, so if the other party is suicidal, is it okay to agree to kill him, then kill him under the Golden Rule?” – the most likely thing to happen is that I already have been in that position myself, or one of my loved ones has, and therefore, I identify the stranger’s predicament with my own or my loved one’s. Obviously, I wanted those people to live. I was greatly concerned for them. I care about them. Because of: 1) the imperative to help in response to need; and 2) the interchangeability of human beings psychologically and morally, I see this other person in need (suicidal) and transfer the care and concern of myself or my loved one onto them. That’s how the Golden Rule works. It means to do the best for somebody. Although I’m sure there is a negative version too: “this” kind of person once pissed me off, so I hate anyone who reminds me of them. Does that make sense? See also http://yellowgrain.co.uk/golden_rule.html

Your argument countenances the notion that it’s okay to forget the strict interpretation of the GR and do what the f*** you want to do according to your values in total disregard of the other’s wishes. Here in Oregon we have assisted suicide so problems like this aren’t always just thought problems.

The golden rule is often pretty good as far as guidance but in many cases it is utterly useless. It is completely relative to the individual. I think it was a major oversight by the bible authors as the previous rule was always to treat people as god tells you to.